Monthly Archives: November 2012

Let’s be honest, Jennifer Rubin is employed by the Washington Post to troll conservatives.

She once again shows her disdain for actual conservatives by saying the real problem are Republicans who won’t raise taxes and Rick Santorum because he’s a scary, scary social conservative. I guess every time Santorum speaks, someone in Bucks County Pennsylvania registers as a Democrat.

And if that wasn’t enough, he added in reference to his PAC: “We’re going to talk about all of the issues with an emphasis on cultural issues.” But of course! As long as there are young voters, upscale urbanites and culturally tolerant people, Santorum will be there to remind them why they don’t want to be identified as Republicans.

If we had only nominated Rubin’s favorite candidate last time around, someone not at all scary to “young voters, upscale urbanites and culturally tolerant people” we would have won. Wait a second….

Here’s a question for good old Jen…does she think Repubican voters who care about social issues are “old, downscale hicks who are intolerant”? Seems so.

Oh and what kind of policies did these wonderful voters we need more of want? Apparently they wanted to bomb Iran! Who knew? Jen Rubin, that’s who!

On Iran, make a military threat credible by obtaining authorization from Congress for use of force ( it hopefully would not be needed, but it would make an impression),

Yes, because nothing says Youth, Urbane and Tolerant like running on a promise to get a de facto declartion of war on Day 1. Yep, that’s clearly what Romney should have done to pull in more votes in Ohio and the Philly burbs.

I also don’t agree with the idea we need to do amnesty just to have the privilege of wooing Hispanics to conservatism. That’s like saying when a salesman wants to make his pitch for a product that costs $100, you’ll listen to him but only after he pays you $150 for the chance.

What I do think is that the country has moved left and conservatives will have an increasingly hard time selling what we believe to an electorate that doesn’t want what we offer.

I’d like to agree with Gabe’s idea that “we lost an election, not an argument” but I don’t. We lost in 08 mostly because of the environment and a terrible candidate. We lost in in 12 in an environment that should have been a slam dunk for us but wasn’t (and we had a terrible candidate).

Romney will get about as many votes as McCain did. That’s a terrible showing but does it represent the ceiling of the current GOP coalition?

Maybe Obama is a unique case study. Maybe his voters won’t come out for Andrew Cuomo or Tim Kaine (if you think that, you damn well better be anti-amnesty). It’s plausible considering how Democrats fail without Obama on the ballot (think 09/10). But would you bet the future of the country on it? Also, ObamaCare is not going anywhere (but towards single payer when the house of cards collapses).

We used to give the Democrats a hard time for blaming their messengers when they lost. They never considered it might be their message. Well, that’s the path we’re going down if we think it was just a few hundred thousand votes here and there. It’s very possible that people aren’t buying what we’re selling and a better salesman won’t change that.

So what’s my proposal for this brave new world? Give in on amnesty. Of course this is a major policy concession so the anti-amnesty crowd will want something in exchange. My price: a flat tax with no deductions/credits, none. No home mortgage deductions, no child tax credit. Nothing.

I’d also like to end withholding but I’m not greedy.

If we are going to create a hard left America where people are voting themselves other people’s money, then we all have to have an equal stake in the game. As someone said, we’re all in this together and people need to pay their fair share. What could be more fair than everyone paying the exact same percentage of their income in federal taxes?

How long do you think people will be enamored with big government spending once they are paying for it?